Table Of Content

DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS SANFRANCISCOPUBLICLIBRARY DOn 3 1223 6S9 7950 l^AP^..Tc; OEPT. SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY GOLDEN GATE PARK MASTER PLAN Issues Report -- Transportation prepared for Royston Hanamoto Alley and Abey and City and County of San Francisco Recreation and Park Department BARCOl/l. Lr.^c^^ w. 3 ^ by TOTAL PARTS DKS Associates March 1993 3, DKS Associates Contents Acknowledgements iii INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1. 1 Analysis Approach 1 Summary Of Findings 2 STATUS OF TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENT- 2. ATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CITY POLICY DOCUMENTS 5 City Comprehensive Plan 5 Summary Of Status Of 1985 Transportation Management Plan 7 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 24 Transportation Modes To And From The Park 24 Roadways 24 Parking 33 Pedestrian And Roller Skating Facilities 37 Bicycle Facilities 39 Equestrian Facilities 40 Transit Service 40 4. CIRCULATION ISSUES - 43 Access And The Park Experience 43 Through Traffic 44 Row Traffic 45 Bicycle Circulation 45 Pedestrian Circulation 46 Transit Service 46 Taxis 47 Relationship To Nearby Recreation Facilities 47 Plan Implementation 47 3 1223 04289 7950 . DKS Associates Tablps 5/S fTravel to Golden Gate Park 26 li in Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes - Two Directions 31 f of 1992 Parking Survey - Eastern Golden Gate Park^ 37 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CENTER SANFRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY jate Park 25 isures 28 REFERENCE /eekday Traffic Volumes - Two-Directional 29 BOOK nations in Traffic Volume 30 )ccupancy - Midday Saturday 35 )ccupancy - Midday Sunday 36 )ccupancy - Midday Weekday 38 Not lo betaken fromthe Library ;rvice 41 n Map Back Cover Pocket REF 388.4097 G5656 Golden Gate Park master plan Issues : 1993 P92164-04/A ii March 3. 1993 DKS Associates Tables Table 1 Modes of Travel to Golden Gate Park 26 Table 2 Changes in Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes - Two Directions 31 Table 3 Summary of 1992 Parking Survey - Eastern Golden Gate Park^ 37 Figures Figure 1 Golden Gate Park 25 Figure 2 Road Closures 28 Figure 3 Typical Weekday Traffic Volumes - Two-Directional 29 Figure 4 Daily Variations in Traffic Volume 30 Figure 5 Parking Occupancy - Midday Saturday 35 Figure 6 Parking Occupancy - Midday Sunday 36 Figure 7 Parking Occupancy - Midday Weekday 38 Figure 8 Transit Service 41 Insert Circulation Map Back Cover Pocket REP 388.4097 G5656 Golden Gate Park master plan Issues : 1993. P92164-04/A ii March 3. 1993 DKS Associates Acknowledgements The following people contributed to this study: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Deborah Learner Recreation and Park Department, Project Manager Ron DeLeon Recreation and Park Department PhilArnold Recreation and Park Department Jim Cooney Recreation and Park Department Jon Hutlinger Recreation and Park Department Chad Basilico Recreation and Park Department Diane Palacio Recreation and Park Department Elaine Molinari Recreation and Park Department Duncan Watty S.F. Muni Railway Julie Lau Department of Parking and Traffic Peter Tannen Department of Parking and Traffic Bill Wyco Department of City Planning Charles Rivasplata Department of City Planning Richard Skaff Disabled Access Coordinator COMMUNITY PARTICIPANTS David Shaw California Academy of Sciences Joe Brennan California Academy of Sciences Roberta Borgonovo California Academy of Sciences Lena Emmery Cole Valley Harry Parker M.H. de Young Museum David Lipsky San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and Bicycle Advisory Committee Sherin Cole Asian Art Museum DougJohnson Richmond-Sunset Green Party Laurie Goldman Strybing Arboretum Society Nancy Conner Friends of Recreation and Parks Marilyn Smulyan Fine Arts Museum Darryl Skrabak San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Gordon Chester Citizen Christine Schnieder San Francisco Tommorrow Hugh Reynolds Conservatory of Flowers Barbara Marion Kezar-Poly Neighborhood Association Craig Dawson Inner Sunset Merchants Association P92164-04/A March 3, 1993 111 DKS Associates MaryAnne Miller Sunset Parkside Education and Action Committee Greg Gaar Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council Ed Houden Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council Jon Gledhill University of California, San Francisco Ron Miguel Planning Association for the Richmond Howard Strassner Sierra Club David Miles, Jr. Golden Gate Park Skate Patrol Patricia Fink Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council ArthurFeinstein Audobon Society MarjorieAnson Strybing Arboretum Society Augustine Sue Golden Gate Park Skate Patrol Greg Gaar Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council CONSULTANTS Asa Hanamoto Royston Hanamoto Alley and Abey Doug Nelson Royston Hanamoto Alley and Abey Laura Lafler Royston Hanamoto Alley and Abey JeffBuxbaum DKS Associates, Project Manager Dan Smith, Jr. DKS Associates DKS JeffMaxtutis Associates Inger Knox DKS Associates Bonnie Dash DKS Associates Lucy Collier DKS Associates P92164-04/A iv DKS Associates Introduction and Summary 1. The purpose of this report is to provide a resource for participants in the Golden Gate Park Master Plan Update project on issues of circulation in and around the park. This report is the product of Phase 1 of the Master Plan Update project. In Phase 2, the potential modifications and updates to the master plan will be addressed in detail. The report is organized as follows: 1. Introduction and Summary. Discussion ofthe approach to the analysis, and a summary of findings. 2. Status ofTransportation Management Plan Implementation. The 1985 Transportation Management Plan forms the basis for the circulation component of the park's existing Master Plan. The status of implementation is discussed. 3. Existing Conditions. Provides a summary of data and observations regarding park circulation. 4. Circulation Issues. Reports the results of our synthesis of the data, observations, and opinions of people on the Transportation Task Force. ANALYSIS APPROACH This report is the product of the following analysis approach: • We reviewed data, reports and correspondence relating to circulation in Golden Gate Park, and identified gaps in the data. We • requested that City staff collect additional data relating to parking occupancy and traffic volumes. • We observed circulation conditions in the park on weekdays and weekend days. • We met with the Golden Gate Park Transportation Task Force on several occasions to elicit observations, concerns and opinions related to circulation in and around the park. We • reviewed the objective, policies and actions of the existing Transportation Management Plan as to the status of implementation. We • organized and evaluated the above information into this report. P92164-04/A 1 March 3, 1993 DKS Associates Focus ofAnalysis A Master Plan is a general, policy-oriented document. Therefore, our discussion ofconditions and issues focuses on larger, general issues rather than site-specific operations concerns. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Golden Gate Park is situated in San Francisco bordered by The Great Highway (and the Pacific Ocean) on the west side, the Richmond and Sunset districts on the north and south sides, and the Haight, Panhandle, and University of San Francisco districts on the east side. An urban park, it accommodates both destination oriented as well as through traffic of all modes: private automobile, taxi, bus, bicycle, pedestrian and roller skates. The park has 15 miles ofroadways, numerous pedestrian paths, a bike path and signed bike routes, and bridle trails for equestrians. The park is further opened to non-motorized traffic on weekends, with closure ofMiddle Drive West on Saturdays and Kennedy Drive east ofTransverse Drive on Sundays and seven Monday holidays. There are about 5,000 parking spaces in the park, with the highest demand for parking in the vicinity of the Museums and California Academy of Sciences in the East Park^. The most popular mode of travel to the park is via automobile (61 percent of park visitors), followed by walking (21 percent), public transit (7 percent) and bicycling (6 percent).*^ Traffic conditions in the East Park are generally characterized by long, slow moving lines of cars searching for parking spaces. This is especially true on King Drive and Middle Drive East. Conditions are most severe on Sundays, when Kennedy Drive is closed, congested on Saturda\-s. and less severe during the week. However, there is still considerable parking congestion in the vicinity of the East Park attractions on weekdays. Traffic in the West Park generally operates with little congestion, and parking is more readily available. Theexceptions are Chain ofLakes Drive, where north-south through traffic is excessive for the size of the roadway, and King Drive at the Cross Over Drive intersection, especially on Saturdays when Middle Drive West is closed, and during peak commute periods. East Park refers to the portion of the park generally east of Cross Over Drive, while West Park refers to west of Cross Over Drive. Golden Gate Comprehensive Transportation Study, Phase I Report, prepared for San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, Jefferson Associates, July 1982. P92164-04/A 2 March 3. 1993 DKS Associates Existing Master Plan Implementation I Of the 31 Actions in the 1985 Transportation Management Plan, 16 (52 percent) have been completed, and another 6 (19 percent) have been partially completed. \ Summary of Issues Access and the Park Experience. The central circulation issue in the East Park relates to the ! inherent conflict between: j ) i • desire to limit auto traffic in the park to enhance the park experience, • need for access to the park's attractions, such as the de Young Museum, Asian Art Museum, California Academy of Sciences, Strybing Arboretum and Botanical Garden, j and the Conservatory, especially for mobility impaired people, and | ' J • provision of adequate, conveniently located parking for those that drive to the park. Addressing and developing consensus on how to best address these conflicts will provide direction ' i for how to deal with other circulation issues facing the park. j Through TrafTic. By virtue of its focation, Golden Gate Park is a popular through route for non- I i Park user. For east-west traffic, Kennedy Drive is extensively used. Policies and actions relating to whether such traffic should be discouraged need to be addressed. Potential policies to separate Kezar Drive traffic should be explored. For north-south traffic, the existing policy to grade- separate Cross Over Drive from King Drive has not been implemented, nor has any action been , taken to explore a north-south through route in the West Park. j Traffic Speeds. There is a perception that motorists on Kennedy Drive typically exceed the ! posted 25 miles per hour speed limit. This raises issues relating to traffic safety, as well as the j function of Kennedy Drive as a through route. i I Bicycle Circulation. Bicycle circulation issues involve providing facilities for different types of ' riders, resolving conflicts between pedestrians, roller skaters and automobiles, and considering j various traffic restrictions for bicycles, automobiles and pedestrians. i Pedestrian Circulation. Issues relating to pedestrian circulation include consideration of north- south through routes through the park, separating pedestrians from other modes, and investigation of improved mapping and signing for pedestrian facilities. | Transit Service. Transit service needs to be considered in any potential changes to roadway circulation. Shuttle services and their implications also need to be considered. P92164-04/A 3 March 3, 1993 i